On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > At Wed, 22 Nov 2017 08:20:22 +0900, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote in > <cab7npqq03jrewkqbc0fwje9lt1-faqc961oww+upw9qmrxa...@mail.gmail.com> >> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI >> <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: >> > By the way I'm uneasy that the 'last_vacuum_index_scans' (and >> > vacuum_fail_count in 0002 and others in 0003, 0004) is mentioning >> > both VACUUM command and autovacuum, while last_vacuum and >> > vacuum_count is mentioning only the command. Splitting it into >> > vacuum/autovaccum seems nonsense but the name is confusing. Do >> > you have any idea? >> >> Hm. I think that you should actually have two fields, one for manual >> vacuum and one for autovacuum, because each is tied to respectively >> maintenance_work_mem and autovacuum_work_mem. This way admins are able > > It's very convincing for me. Thanks for the suggestion. > >> to tune each one of those parameters depending on a look at >> pg_stat_all_tables. So those should be named perhaps >> last_vacuum_index_scans and last_autovacuum_index_scans? > > Agreed. I'll do so in the next version.
Thanks for considering the suggestion. > # I forgot to add the version to the patch files... Don't worry about that. That's not a problem for me I'll just keep track of the last entry. With the room I have I'll keep focused on 0001 by the way. Others are of course welcome to look at 0002 and onwards. -- Michael
